Replies

I did not intend to suggest any such thing as to you. I pinged you simply as a courtesy because I was responding to a ping that had been addressed to you.

If being a "neo"conservative has morphed from meaning "elderly former socialist but anti-communist, mostly Jewish, NYC college professors who fled the Democrat Party after McGovern's communists took control" to anyone willing to use the organized force of the United States military with or without a by-your-leave from the "world community," then John Bolton must be the latter form of "neoconservative" and so am I and damned proud of it.

John Bolton's emphasis has always been on armaments, military deployment and thwarting the panty-waisted diployakkers who will sell this country, its people and its BORDERS down the river every time in service to their Chamber of Crony Commerce patrons.

Not every government official needs to be deployed on the border matter. Trump has this right. It is relatively simple. Build the damn wall. Build it ASAP. Close the ports of entry and airports to unauthorized immigration. Stop the infernal demand of the colleges and universities (often domestic enemies) for ever more revenue from foreign students wo come to study, hard sciences while our own often major in sex, drugs and rock 'n roll or ethnic and alternative lifestyle studies. Bolton does not need to reform American misedjamakashun either. Or the tax code. Or the regulatory empire. Spread Bolton too thin and he will, despite his talents, become less effective.

The purpose of the military is to kill our enemies swiftly, efficiently and relentlessly and break his things and confiscate enough assets to pay for every last nickel of expenses incurred in the exercise, get the hell out and repeat as regrettably necessary.

Personally, I'd go soft on the confiscate assets part. Just wars are defensive in nature, and at every level, determining and extracting just compensation leads to more wars and more misery for both sides.

France sought compensation for WWI which helped create conditions for a Hitler to come into power. It would have been a better deal if they let up a bit, and let both sides recover. After WWII, the U.S. did not enslave Japan until all was repaid; it would not have happened if we tried. That does not preclude utterly destroying them until the peace can take place, if necessary. But, if we can deal with them magnanimously after, good can sometimes be the result. Japan is a solid nation now, and has learned (compared to other countries) from her sins.

I couldn't even imagine how 1870s Republicans would try to get the Confederate States to reimburse them for expenses. Especially given the unnecessary ruination that was performed to make the point.

Even at lower levels, when low level criminals commit low level crimes that nonetheless destroy property, we cannot possibly recover the money to run that system from most of these incidents. A teenager from a poor family goes in anto a house, performing $10,000 of damage to steal $50 of copper. Besides the $10,000 damage, thousands might be spent on the expense of the investigation. Police, headquarters, district attorneys, court appointed defendant counsel, etc. We take the hit to have an overall functioning system. The current practice of asset forfeiture and things of that sort lead to corruption.

Even in ancient times, the promise of plunder does more to tempt men otherwise in the right to turn bad (think 4th Crusade).

We pay for insurance, whether we use it or not. We pay for police, whether we use them or not. We pay for war, even when we suffer a net loss of money. Requiring complete compensation for every wrong when we win the battle means more battles, and more of the things that made the battles at every level.